318 (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of genocide
(2) In this section, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
(a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction

This definition differs from the older United Nations definition (discussed below).

The list of “Identifiable Groups” has gradually expanded (Fabian-style) over the years, beyond the terms relating to ethnicity, nationality and religion.

Definition of identifiable group
(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.

“Hate propaganda” is defined as follows in section 320:

Hate propaganda means any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319;

So “hate propaganda” is defined as advocating/promoting genocide, OR the violation of section 319, the hate law section, which includes the inciting of hatred or the wilful promotion of hatred against any identifiable group:

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of . . .

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of . . .

In the following section, there is an attempt to make the hate section seem more reasonable because, putting aside the advocacy of genocide, the hate section is otherwise pushing a restriction on speech that violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [2] and our traditional concepts of those rights and freedoms.

Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) [seems to apply to (2) only]
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

United Nations definition of genocide

An older and longer definition of “genocide” is found in the United Nations genocide treaty [3], signed by Canada. I’ve highlighted the words that seem significant:

From: The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

Article I

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
. . . etc. etc.

I think it’s significant that the Canadian definition of genocide only has two of the points from the UN definition and omits: b (“causing serious bodily or mental harm”), d (“imposing measures intended to prevent births” – think of past forced sterilization policies just as an example [4]) and e (“forcibly transferring children” – think of native residential schools as an example [5]).

The Canadian definition of genocide also differs from the older UN definition by referring to “any identifiable group” rather than to “a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

Conclusions

In my opinion, the hate speech section is intended to neutralize, block or nullify the domestic application of the genocide law–or at least muddy the waters–by discouraging discussion on topics that relate to genocide methods. The list of “identifiable groups” also waters down or confuses our interpretation of who the likely target groups are of actual genocide.

The brainwashing we endure from childhood from being attached to the television and other media devices, and via the education system does the rest in blinding us to a grim reality. In the past, in my opinion, this reality took various forms such as mass deaths in the trenches, and other traumatic experiences during the world wars and other wars. These traumatic experiences affected the minds and attitudes and family life of those generations involved and their offspring (if they survived to have offspring). Other traumatic experiences such as the fear of nuclear war, 9/11 and other terrorist events and various crises highlighted in the media are more mental and less physical, but they have an impact on our stability and how we see our future. The drug culture (and the war on drugs) has caused trauma for many people. I think the sexual revolution exposed more people to personal trauma than we realize.

The reality of our system, unfortunately, as far as I’m concerned, is in my face all the time–and is summed up in the words of Bertrand Russell:

Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.

–Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1953, pp. 50-51.

I think this entire quote applies to our current society, but please re-read it a few times and think about it on your own.

I would also refer you to all the research I’ve collected on population control [6].

The largest group is just the majority of the public described by this quote and doesn’t see itself as needing protection from genocide. And I don’t think it is only those of European background. I think it is literally the majority of the world’s population.

In my opinion, any kind of artificial, persistent toxicity – to be consumed, injected or conveyed as information by language – is potentially suspect as to genocidal intent [8].

Whatever is toxic (and human in origin) to our bodies, to our brains, to our minds, to our spirits, to our ability to produce and maintain families – is suspect.

Imposing sterilization measures and abortion does go on in the world [6].

In Canada, what is currently imposed are measures to force us to pay for abortion, sterilization and even euthanasia procedures, as well as for dubious psychotropic drugs among others (in some cases), and dubious vaccines systematically, as well as fluoridation (depending on our municipality and how aggressive the higher levels of government are) [7].

Efforts are being made–coming from an international level– to force conformity of belief among medical practitioners who don’t want to cooperate with certain procedures, thus violating their freedom of conscience and ours [9].

We could talk about many aspects of the world we live in, including the endless foreign wars and their toxic effects on everybody, including family stability. We could talk about the mainstream entertainment industry–not to mention the massive impact of Internet pornography– that insists on degrading our culture, sexualizing children (through music and fashion for example), presenting new levels of brutality and new contexts for sexuality, including sadism. Much of this is completely in line with the plot (or agenda) of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and the old MKUltra program also–drugs, endless drugs in order to not solve problems. We lack a strong culture, we can’t talk to each other — it seems like that anyway — we can’t find common ground it seems.

If we don’t even think there is a problem, we let it go on. How long does it go on? In this global system of “free trade” agreements that undermine our laws and sovereignty and therefore whatever democracy we have, the wages get lower, the hours get longer, the actual families get smaller, the future gets dimmer and colder as carbon fuels become “evil” based on the new doctrines that blame life-enhancing gases for climate cycles. We become carbon units, producing “dangerous” carbon dioxide (that plants need to live), so we ourselves are the problem following this logic [10]. Our choices could become very limited. For example, we could be eating what we are told to eat as new declarations are made which decide our reality for us in the name of “science.” Whether we can drive or not could be very limited for many reasons (from drugs to fuel costs).

This definition also includes “inflicting on the group conditions of life calculate to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” and “causing serious bodily or mental harm.” I referred to Bertrand Russell’s statement already and there are other authors I could cite also. There are many questions some of us have about food production, fluoridation, prescription drugs, plastics and other issues relating to toxicity [8].

It’s hard to be 100% certain, but it seems to me that the hate law section is intended to discourage any kind of discussion about the following topics (what I call them) referred to as “identifiable groups”–so that government policies and societal trends led by corporations and international agencies working for the oligarchy can continue without much hindrance:

a) colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin

i) Criticism of immigration policies has been discouraged for a long time in Canada, but at least there was some control. The recent mass migration policies involving massive numbers of refugees and migrants (portrayed originally as refugees) appear to be completely out of control and destructive in intent and originate with internationalist groups who are attempting to wipe out national borders at this obviously critical period we are living in. If we are made to pay for it, we should be able to talk about it. The UN is attempting to suppress criticism, so there are open threats against press freedom from the UN Migration Compact [11].

Another area of potential criticism is the subject of temporary foreign workers. Having to compete with low wage workers is destructive to our quality of life. Corporations and businesses become used to cheap labor, and we are not supposed to stand in the way of “progress.” Maybe avoidance of foreign products will be demonized in future, who knows?

ii) Less uniformity in a culture–even just language differences–means less ability to communicate or get along with others in your community and country–never mind being bombarded with years of post-9/11, officially approved hate and war propaganda that contradicts the immigration polices. Hence “hate” becomes relevant as a way of characterizing frustrations that obviously nobody should try to resolve in any way through discussion, right? Maybe discussion would be helpful? I believe policy-makers are causing division and destabilization within nations–divide and conquer–in order to transfer power from nation states to global government institutions. The actual purveyors of hate-filled news AND entertainment (against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Russia, Iran, . . . ) seem to want to generate more hate with their extreme migration policies and then characterize those who object as hate-filled extremists and racists.

iii) If a certain lifestyle or food preference is being promoted (like one that reduces your ability to reproduce or tells you (via monetary “signals”) to switch off the lights or turn down the heat), that could end up being designated as a religion in order to protect its adherents from disagreement (or “hate”). Actually, religion–and belief–is something that we all need to speak freely about in order to survive. Evidence is excellent too. If only “science” provided evidence and didn’t spend so much time making declarations and demands to promote belief using public relations techniques. But freedom of speech and freedom of religion and conscience are nice protections against beliefs we don’t agree with. Our minds are for weighing evidence and making judgments, and when there is a lot of noise and bullying (and hate) instead of evidence, we should stop going along and we should think for ourselves instead.

b) age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression

i) Nobody likes to be seen as backward or puritanical, but overall I think the cultural programming is damaging. We invest ourselves, I believe, in entertainment–in terms of time, energy and emotional commitment. For different reasons, possibly out of fear of being seen as weak or prudish, I believe we shy away from talking about what offends us in entertainment, and what we are told is happening (or not told) in school sex education classes. Mainstream entertainment, Internet pornography and sex education–in their different ways– do seem to be promoting various sexual behaviors that people will find objectionable to various degrees.

The Brave New World agenda is to sexualize children–and this is happening when it comes to music and fashion and sex education. The age category and others could conceivably end up being used in this way potentially.

Even more transgressive practices could be introduced through vague expressions related to “gender identity or expression” especially if the related terms (like ‘Q’) are not all defined consistently (of course not, because that requires thought and thought leads to critical discernment if it’s allowed to go that far).

Relating to “sexual orientation” but also to the sexual revolution/playboy philosophy in past decades, some sexual practices–including promiscuity–people used to question (and still do privately) are apparently seen as more legitimate–at least they are promoted to everyone. And even when there are health consequences, I believe we are running away from the questions that need to be discussed. Sado-masochism is portrayed in mainstream books and entertainment now. There’s a reason for that in my view.

Also, are sex work and pornography legitimate career choices? Maybe you have an opinion to share with your children about that before sending them out in the world.

Do people actually want to produce children and grandchildren? Almost everyone is deep into this already–mentally anyway–and they might know there’s a problem but they don’t feel like they can talk about it or question it. We’re so free?!

ii) Age could be used as a buffer to permit the gender confusion of impressionable children to continue (via sex education and entertainment) and to permit their “treatment” with sterilizing hormones.

iii) If you criticize abortion or birth control, are you going to be seen as attacking women, or portrayed that way by some?

iv) If you advocate for different roles for males and females in society and in the family, are you going to be seen as attacking women? But back in the 80s we were told at the time that women had to work due to economic pressures. So, is the “equality” of working all day outside of the home for corporate strangers instead of raising children a choice, or was it forced on society? I don’t think those pressures just happened randomly. There has been a reduction in quality of life, and if you looked into it, you would see that there has been a decline in the number of children per woman [12].

“Day care” (the terminology became “child care”) has been on the political agenda for a long time. Couples find they can’t live without that obviously.

The agenda of Brave New World and Plato’s Republic is to remove child-rearing from parents. There are no parents in Brave New World and no marriages. There are similar circumstances in The Republic.

Many changes have occurred relating to marriage and roles, changes to divorce laws for example, and I think these things have been engineered to weaken the family. We don’t know everything about the past, but I think that life was often too oppressive for both males and females in one way or another because a lot of the same types of people were in charge who are still in charge. Some ideas from the past are helpful if they are suitable for how we really are naturally and what helps us function at our best and have a sense of dignity and purpose as males and females.

v) Regarding “sexual orientation”, as related policy changes have been introduced in many places–because the oligarchy is global–affirmation of the traditional definitions of marriage and everything related to family life and roles is likely to be cooled and limited by the inclusion of “sexual orientation” in this list. This amendment was made (in the early 2000s) before the legalization of same-sex marriage was completed federally [13].

vi) Regarding “gender expression and identity,” the transgender activism began even more recently, and there were concerns about forcing businesses and institutions to not have separate bathrooms and change rooms for male/female. This is a basic cultural norm and I suspect that it is being quietly resisted in Canada because it only goes so far so fast. On the other hand, people are too complacent with allowing propaganda and too intimidated–whether they know about the hate law explicitly or not. The legislation (Bill C-279) was introduced in 2013 and included other changes besides the amendment to the hate law. I think it indicates the top-down nature of this policy that so many MPs just accepted it based on their party affiliation, with the ruling Conservative Party leadership being lukewarm about it and allowing dissenting votes, thus letting it pass [14].

c) mental or physical disability

There is quite a history of eugenics directed towards disability in Canada. It’s the same elites in charge now. I think it’s clear that abortion is being used in this way already. I think there are questions people should ask. Yes, I think people have compromised, but I don’t want to condemn outright. I want people to think and ask questions. This seems to relate to the genocide law, doesn’t it?

On a different point, I wanted to point out an aspect to Brave New World which is very disturbing. That is the caste system. The menial workers in the slave state are physically and mentally damaged to limit their development starting as soon as they are (artificially) conceived.

What I want to point out is the importance of being able to talk freely about the need to understand the causes or effective treatments for certain conditions (disabilities or illnesses, physical or mental) such as autism–without hate being implied. I have seen efforts in mainstream media and entertainment that seeks to muddy the waters about what autism is and to portray it in a way that it is something we are not to see as a problem people are afflicted with, that somehow it has no cause outside of genetics.

I want to know what is in the vaccines, in the pesticides and herbicides, and what is in the food and water. I want to know who is responsible for what. I want to know the effect of certain drugs on developing brains. I want to know if those drugs actually do any good at all. And I don’t want declarations and propaganda about “hate” and “stigma” that deflects from agendas where there is no intention to determine causes or help people become as healthy and happy as possible. It’s not “hate” against those who have mental or physical disabilities to point this out.

All of these subjects–and others relating to health also–are very touchy. We are not separate from those with disabilities and illnesses. We struggle to keep our families together. We are affected by serious problems in our own lives but we can sometimes imagine that serious problems only occur to other people somewhere else.

In my view, our society is being devastated by illnesses and family problems, and the ruling oligarchy-regardless of party–corporations, think tanks and media (entertainment/news/publishing)–scramble to provide coping mechanisms (self-help) and rationale/cover stories which they can use to sugar-coat and/or browbeat the public.

I believe that the world as a whole is subject to an effort at depopulation and eventual enslavement.
The policies that orchestrate these goals–from “free trade” to “reproductive rights”– are portrayed as “progress” and are promoted by propaganda experts in glowing terms.

Speaking to people involved in these causes professionally or otherwise, I think you should be more conscious of advocating for causes and products and services that you’re not going to investigate properly, whether you are going to tell people that they shouldn’t emit carbon dioxide to heat their homes, or whether you are going to repeat decades-old mantras about their being “too many people” in the world. You’re going to promote GMO corn (but not tell us any details) with a few one-liners about how opponents are “anti-science”!? That’s your level of argument?

If you’re involved in indoctrinating children into new levels of confusion so that they can’t have families, think again. If you’re covering for corporate toxins with the latest lie you’re going to just repeat over and over, think again. Think about the UN genocide law. Read it over a few times. Get a sense of what you might be involved in while you’re preaching “progress.” Are there not reasons to object to what you’re pushing? Shouldn’t every person have a voice?

I’m not into Left vs. Right. That’s meant to confuse and divide. Have you noticed any of that?

The so-called Cultural Marxists were brought in by the Western establishment and placed in influential positions in order to overturn what they still falsely characterize as the “Authoritarian Personality.” The “authoritarian” in their minds is someone who stands up to people like them who (knowingly or unknowingly) work for a totalitarian agenda which seeks to undermine his (or her) efforts to build a strong and healthy family, culture and society–a society in which people are encouraged to think clearly and speak freely, in which people are able to value their own lives and the lives of others, in which people pursue justice and compassion for everyone, including those who are abused, confused and disadvantaged.

I don’t just mean this as a far-off ideal that we will never get to. If you have read this article and you have gotten past being offended for whatever reason, maybe you agree with some of it and you’re willing to consider the implications of what is happening. In the right context, bearing in mind the risks, I think it’s necessary to talk. We should want to effect change within the system we live in and within our communities, so that we can survive what is happening and promote a healthy future. I think we should use whatever abilities we have to influence the world around us. I think we should change our lives and live in accordance with real values (concern for the needs of our fellow human beings) and even find ways to bridge the gaps that separate us from others–to make common ground with different types of people (across age, religion, ethnicity, etc.) and not assume they’re part of the problem. Then we are at least doing our best to hold some ground, and we might find the strength to make it past all of these hate-filled and destructive policies. I’m not trying to be overly optimistic. I’m saying that there is hope and empowerment in recognizing how bad the situation is and in speaking out about it.

References & Additional Information

Note: unless specified otherwise, web references are cited as accessed on or before January 27, 2019

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Note: I’m not a supporter of the United Nations at all, nor most of its agendas. After all, the UN is a major instrument of the agenda I am writing about. I am looking at the situation as it is and pointing to contradictions and good principles where I can find them. There seem to be well-intentioned people everywhere. I think the idea of nations talking to each other and deliberating as equal, independent entities is a salvageable concept, but the UN is not designed that way by those who created it. There are useful statements and information from organizations like the UN sometimes, but it is intended to do what it does, to plan and interfere with all aspects of life, including sexuality, to get right under the skin literally.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:
Approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948
Entry into force: 12 January 1951, in accordance with article XIII

260 (III). Prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide
A
Adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and Text of the ConventionThe General AssemblyApproves the annexed Convention . . .

e) UN website article discussing the document and definition of genocide (accessed January 27, 2019): https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.html. This article is from the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, so it’s in the context of using genocide to justify intervention in other nations. No doubt there are those who would intend the RTP doctrine and allegations of genocide to provide cover rationalizations for grabbing resources and doing more harm than good, but I am just trying to be objective about what the world’s supposed standards are:

Genocide is a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings; such denial of the right of existence shocks the conscience of mankind, results in great losses to humanity in the form of cultural and other contributions represented by these human groups, and is contrary to moral law and to the spirit and aims of the United Nations. . . . (p. 188-189)

Common Rights & Expectations: primary international treaties protecting
the rights of all people
UNITED NATIONS TEXTS
PARTICIPATING NATIONS
CURRENT NORTH AMERICAN RESERVATIONS AND DECLARATIONS
1996
Gerald and Maas
Ottawa

There were a total of about 130 schools in every territory and province except Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick from the earliest in the 19th century to the last, which closed in 1996.

In all, about 150,000 First Nation, Inuit and Métis children were removed from their communities and forced to attend the schools.

[7] Depending on the jurisdiction, taxpayers are often or always funding these programs in addition to other medical procedures if the province considers them medically necessary. These links are accessed February 10, 2019

“Nearly 550 assisted deaths in Ontario since law came into effect: coroner”, By Staff, The Canadian Press, July 6, 2017

. . . the government of Ontario is still working with physicians to develop a fee code — which sets what doctors are paid — for performing a medically assisted death.

According to the health minister’s office, doctors can bill the government for . . . a consultation, and in some cases a home visit and or an intravenous therapy. . . .

g) Many municipalities fund fluoridation of the water supply and higher levels of government continue to rage and emit ridicule and one-sided information about its benefits for dental health–as in decades past–in response to the decades-old continuing opposition to fluoridation. It continues to be a serious agenda for those in power, but shouldn’t there be even an individual choice about any so-called medication?

. . . a new study from Environmental Defence warns Canadian about the use of chemicals BPA and BPS on receipts.

BPA

mimics estrogen and has been linked to hormone-related side effects including infertility and breast and prostate cancers.

I heard about BPA in receipts years ago. The EU plans to ban it from receipts by 2020, but what about Canada? It should have already been banned. The delay signals that there are other priorities. See the above information about the fluoridation / dental health priority for a contrast.

[9] I cover many details about the global population agenda and the attack on freedom of conscience regarding doctors in this series: http://canadianliberty.com/?p=17871 “Freedom of conscience vs. global population policies”

[10] Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome, 1991, p. 115:

The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man: In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.

Same-sex marriage in Canada was progressively introduced in several provinces by court decisions beginning in 2003 before being legally recognized nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act on July 20, 2005. On June 10, 2003, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a decision immediately legalizing same-sex marriage in Ontario, thereby becoming the first province where it was legal.

The “sexual orientation” change to the hate law was made in 2002-2003:

December 30, 2002
. . .
Bill C-250 (formerly 415) is a Private Member’s Bill that would amend section 318(4) of the Criminal Code (in place since 1970) that protects certain identifiable groups (as defined by colour, race, religion, and ethnic origin) from hate propaganda. The amendment would expand the list of groups so protected to include any “section of the public distinguished by sexual orientation.”

Who wants to support hate, right? The above article, if you read through, indicates that even conservative Churches provided a weak and naive response, because nobody wants to be considered hateful. I believe the hate law (with or without amendments to the list of groups) simply meant to intimidate those who would otherwise feel a lot more free to express themselves about certain key moral and social subjects that are necessary for our survival–not just within the context of religion. The policy changes about same-sex marriage (see above) came afterwards.

There are ways to express thoughts without resorting to offensive rants, but should any thoughts (other than threats and harassment covered by traditional laws) be criminalized if they could even be defined as “hate”? There are other ways to express disapproval of actually hateful language without criminalizing it. But we also need to say when we dislike certain belief systems for example. If I dislike belief system A which teaches belief X, I will insist on my right to say that. Is “dislike” equal to “hate” by the way?

Older Canadians are so used to living in a culture–influenced by American culture also and we’re often not clear about what laws we’re living under–in which free speech was sacred (set out in the 1982 Charter of Rights and long before that), that I don’t think they have any idea about the consequences of criminalizing speech (especially in such a subjective way). Free speech is not intended for obscenity and to protect raging emotions. Free speech is a value that protects our ability to influence others and the direction of our society.

Everyone just wants to be seen as nice and a lot of people just want to enjoy their lives and not worry about what’s going to happen to younger generations as governments accumulate power and re-engineer society based on instructions they receive from international lenders. So much has happened already since 9/11 especially, which traumatized everyone, but we have been a compliant and obedient society for much longer than that, enduring war after war.

Our opposition to government changes brought in over the years has generally been very naive. People are intimidated by words and labels very successfully from investigating historic events such as 9/11 and the JFK assassination. So we sell our birthright as free human beings for a bowl of pottage–for comfort–and how long do those comforts last with the other policy changes happening. I think that’s most of us or all of us, and I think it’s time to get real about everything and wake up.

None of these changes are accidental and random. These “private members’ bills” are no such thing if they are actually organized at a different level. All major policy changes are introduced systematically along with the excuse-making story-telling efforts that condition our acceptance.

Our compliance isn’t just limited to governments. It consists of going along with everything pushed out by the entertainment industry and all the propaganda pushed by the news media. It consists of going along with food and pharmaceutical products that we have no say in. We just assume it’s all legitimate. And we push our compliance onto others who have questions using ridicule and emotion. Talk about “hate”?

“House of Commons passes Bill C-279 to redefine Gender as a social construct”, March 21, 2013

On March 20th, a majority vote in the House of Commons on Bill C-279 brought Canada one step closer to the brave new world of a gender-fluid society where male and female are no longer biological realities, but mere social constructs. Under the proposed legislation, male and female is no longer defined by physical anatomy, but rather, is determined subjectively by an individual’s “inner feelings” and “experiences”. The bill also seeks to change the Criminal Code so that speech critical of the transgender lifestyle/ideology could potentially be classified as “hate speech”.

Stay up to date

I give Power & Reality permission to collect and use my data submitted in this form.

Give consent that we may collect and use your data.

Mailing List

0% Complete

Privacy Policy: The above statement is added by the mailing list software to comply with EU law. Actually, personal data entered with mailing list subscriptions is only used for the mailing list and nothing else. Also, personal data entered with comments is not used for any other purpose.